Voltstar Tech Inc v. General Wireless Operations Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Voltstar Technologies, Inc. (Illinois)
  • Defendant: General Wireless Operations Inc. dba Radio Shack (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-20919, S.D. Fla., 03/08/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s USB wall chargers infringe a reissue patent related to the dimensional and functional characteristics of compact power adapters designed to avoid obstructing adjacent outlets.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the physical design and packaging of AC-to-DC power converters (chargers) for consumer electronics, a market where compact size and user convenience are significant competitive features.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE48,794, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 9,024,581. The reissue process amended the original patent's Claim 1 to be more restrictive, changing a length limitation from "equal to or less than 2.0 inches" to "less than 2.0 inches" and adding a new width limitation of "less than 1.75 inches." This narrowing of the claim scope during reissue will likely be a central element of the case.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,794 E - "Charger Plug with Improved Package"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,794 E, "Charger Plug with Improved Package," issued October 26, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes problems with prior art power chargers, which were often bulky. This bulk could cause a charger to block adjacent electrical receptacles, protrude excessively from the wall, or require complex and costly manufacturing processes like insert molding for the electrical blades (’794 Patent, col. 1:42-51, col. 2:1-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a charger with a housing specifically sized and shaped to avoid interfering with adjacent outlets (’794 Patent, col. 13:46-54). The design focuses on specific dimensional limitations (e.g., length and width) and a physical configuration that allows easy connection and disconnection of a power cord without removing the charger from the wall outlet (’794 Patent, col. 13:50-61). An example of a charger embodying the invention's principles is depicted in a photograph within the complaint (Compl. ¶11).
• Technical Importance: The claimed solution provides a compact and user-friendly charger design that addresses the common frustration of oversized power adapters blocking multiple outlets on a power strip or wall plate (’794 Patent, col. 12:10-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (’794 Patent, Compl. ¶30).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
  • A charger plug for connecting to a power source to convert 120V input power to DC output power.
  • A housing containing separate blade members and a DC connector.
  • The housing being sized with a longitudinal length of less than 2.0 inches and a width of the outer profile being less than 1.75 inches.
  • The housing's outer profile having "no interference with an adjacent receptacle" of the power source.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies two accused products:

1. "USB Wall Charger with Samsung Galaxy Tab Charging Cable" ("USB Wall Charger") (Compl. ¶14).
2. "USB-A Wall Charger with Quick Charge 3.0" ("USB-A Wall Charger") (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that both accused products are AC-to-DC power converters designed to be plugged into a wall outlet to charge electronic devices like mobile phones (Compl. ¶15, ¶22). The complaint includes a photograph of the first accused product, a white, rectangular charger (Compl. ¶14). It also provides a photograph of the second accused product, a black, rectangular charger bearing the "RadioShack" brand (Compl. ¶21).
• Plaintiff alleges the key infringing functionality is the "reduced plug-size" design, which ensures the chargers do not block or interfere with adjacent outlets when plugged in (Compl. ¶16, ¶23). The complaint further alleges that the size and shape of the chargers permit a power cord to be easily inserted and removed while the charger remains plugged into the wall (Compl. ¶17, ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 2 and 3) that were not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶18, ¶25). The following analysis is based on the narrative infringement allegations in the complaint.

RE48,794 E Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Question (Measurement): The core of the infringement case rests on specific measurements. A central dispute will be whether the accused products, when measured according to standard metrology practices, actually fall within the "less than 2.0 inches" length and "less than 1.75 inches" width limitations of Claim 1. The complaint provides specific measurements, but these will be subject to verification and challenge.
• Scope Question (Claim Construction): The meaning of the phrase "no interference with an adjacent receptacle" will be critical. The court will need to determine whether this requires a complete absence of any physical contact with a hypothetical adjacent plug, or if it means only that a standard adjacent plug is not prevented from being fully and safely inserted. The parties will likely dispute the scope of this functional limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "outer profile having no interference with an adjacent receptacle"
• Context and Importance: This term is a primary functional limitation of the asserted claim. Its construction will define the boundary of infringement. A narrow definition (e.g., preventing full insertion of another plug) would be harder for the plaintiff to prove than a broad one (e.g., any physical contact). Practitioners may focus on this term because it is not purely dimensional and is open to interpretation based on how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand "interference" in the context of electrical outlets in 2008.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes the goal of avoiding interference with use of an adjacent outlet, stating the plug "provides little or no interference with use of an adjacent receptacle" (’794 Patent, col. 1:47-49). This focus on "use" could support an interpretation that "interference" means anything that hinders or impedes the normal use of the adjacent socket.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1(ii) states the profile has no interference "when a like charger plug is mounted in all available orientations in any of the other receptacles" (’794 Patent, col. 14:54-58). A defendant may argue this language sets a specific, objective test: the charger only infringes if its profile physically prevents another identical charger from being plugged in next to it. This suggests a more stringent, direct-conflict standard for "interference" rather than any minor contact.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief requests a determination that infringement has been "willful, wanton, and deliberate" and seeks treble damages (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C). However, the body of the complaint does not allege any specific facts to support this claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or a history of copying.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A primary issue will be one of factual proof: Can Plaintiff demonstrate through expert measurement and testing that the accused chargers' dimensions strictly meet the "less than 2.0 inches" and "less than 1.75 inches" limitations recited in the reissued claim? The case may turn on a battle of metrology experts.
2. The central legal question will be one of claim construction: How will the court define the functional requirement of "no interference with an adjacent receptacle"? The outcome will likely depend on whether the patent's language is interpreted to mean a complete lack of physical contact or the more functional standard of not preventing the use of the adjacent outlet.
3. A further question relates to the reissue history: Given that the asserted claim was narrowed during reissue, the court will have to consider whether the accused products meet these new, stricter dimensional limitations. While not yet raised, this reissue history could also open the door to a potential defense of intervening rights for any products sold before the reissue date of October 26, 2021.